Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

ChocolateReign

Members
  • Content Count

    7,528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

ChocolateReign last won the day on October 19 2016

ChocolateReign had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

28,508 Excellent

About ChocolateReign

  • Rank
    Hive Mind Queen Bee

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. It sounds like an invented reason.
  2. That they truly believed there was nothing to worry about? 1.) Package bombs usually are not random (not even sure I can think of a case where one was offhand). 2.) If they bomb was targeted at the victim or someone else, there would be no reason to believe anyone else was in danger. I get that you want to invent reasons to criticize the APD but this just seems unreasonable. Considering the next bomb went off 10 days later I am not sure your call for "vigilance" would have mattered.
  3. Cliven, Ryan, and Ammon - future domestic terrorists (imo). Not Ted.
  4. Bomb activity is not normal or typical but ones of that appear targeted tend not to be random either. Which is why the police focused on the victim being targeted, having made it himself, or received a package intended for someone else. All 3 of which are significantly more likely than a totally random package bomb. FWIW they figured out it was a package bomb - they could not know at that time it was random. When homicide investigators hear hoof beats they will always look for horses before looking for zebras.
  5. They are a sticking point for myself and many others. And for successful prosecutions (example: government misconduct led to mistrials in the Bundy case).
  6. Actually the theory I read was he was accidentally killed by a bomb targeting a drug dealer, not him. The police were looking into the victim which happens often in a homicide investigation because that is how you often find motive. Additional vigilance for...what? It was the first bombing and the police had little info on what happened. There were no witnesses and limited information.
  7. You brought up COINTELPRO which did involve violations, and when I pointed out that domestic terror investigations have limitations that international do not you brushed it off by saying rights are violated anyway.
  8. That's right - a bomb. SOP is to call in the ATF to assist with an investigation (they are really good at this) and investigate accordingly. Considering serial bombers are not common and most bomb incidents are one-offs, I can't see why you are so convinced something was done incorrectly.
  9. 1.) You are drastically overstating the "denigrating" of his character. 2.) Why not reassure the public initially? Are you seriously saying when the first bomb went off they should have shouted "Everyone panic!" when they had no reason to suspect a serial bomber? 3.) What does investigating domestic terror threats have to do with these bombings?
  10. And read what I wrote - we don't know what our intelligence agencies are preventing. And looking at the attacks labeled as right-wing attacks in the U.S., I don't see many that don't involve a lone-wolf type. Which are the same ones we struggle to stop on the international side. And general rule of thumb is that every law enforcement agency will ask for more to do more. I am not saying they are wrong, but it doesn't mean they would prevent these attacks either. They certainly wouldn't have prevented this one as it doesn't appear to be a domestic terrorist attack at this time.
  11. That's the thing - murders tend not to be random. When there was no obvious clue as to why he was targeted is when the accidental target theory was floated. With limited data points there wasn't anything else to go on.
  12. Considering I don't know exactly what threats we potentially face from large, well funded international terrorist groups, I really can't say. COINTELPRO was ended in the 70s, right? Or are you advocating that we have the FBI violate rights of U.S. citizens? And even though I have shown otherwise, are you still claiming the FBI doesn't infiltrate groups when they have the legal authority to do so?
  13. Pretty sure I gave you a list of undercover operations the FBI has run in recent years, and there are many others. Domestic organizations will always be harder to track due to rights (and therefore law enforcement limitations) we have in the U.S. and restrictions our law enforcement has here that do not apply to our international intelligence gathering. It's not like the FBI is sitting on its hands: https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/595163065/mosque-bombing-plot-rattles-immigrants-in-kansas-meat-triangle
  14. It does make sense if you believe worse events are being prevented by focusing on overseas threats.
×
×
  • Create New...